Some Palin Strategery

Listen closely, because never again will I admit this: We need more women in politics.

Now that that’s out of the way, let me assure you that I have NOT defected to that bristly “other side.” You can still count on me, as ever, to serve up contrarian narrow-mindedness. It’s in the job description, ya know?

My reputation as a rabid anti-feminist notwithstanding, I’ve got to concede the point that there’s a shortage of women in politics.

What else could explain the universal expectation that Sarah Palin will woo women to her boss’s long-suffering side? Only a political environment mired in maleness could declare that girls will find in Palin Hillary Clinton’s trademark appeal.

There’s an unspoken dirty little secret among us women, though, the malice of which would never occur to the simpletons over at the boys’ club.

While the guys don’t and won’t “get it,” the girls totally do – but you can bet your bottom dollar (and at bottom it is) that I’m the only girl who’ll go there.

Women are masters at the battle of the sexes – a game of toughs, bluffs, and one-ups. But since I never play fair – and since I’m about to show you a winning hand – I’m going to reveal a truth that man and woman alike will deny.

But, of course, one group will be bluffing. I think you know which.

First, consider women’s favorite political role model – Hillary.

She’s feisty, smart, accomplished … and she couldn’t keep her man. As revered as she was for most of 2008, Hillary’s legacy remains one embossed by the unique dynamic of her supporters. People – women – love to hate her, and though right now she’s playing the role of the wounded also-ran, her imprint has long been calcified by her husband’s betrayals.

Women just can’t abide those among us who appear to “have it all.” Sure there’s the women’s studies set, the ones who feign admiration for the “everywoman” type. But that militancy belies a universally insidious truth.

Girls loved – love – Hillary not because she showed us that it’s possible to have it all, but because she showed us that it’s not possible.

Bill’s, um, “liaisons,” on the surface were a blemish on Hillary’s history, meliorating rather than marring her public profile. Common wisdom dictates either that Bill’s infidelity endeared her by clemency or indicted her by association. The truth is that her personal chaos inured her to women because it made them feel a little less bad for falling short of their own standards – and, totally apropos, Palin herself falls short of Clinton by not giving girls a reason to feel that they haven’t fallen short.

To be fair, it’s not really Palin’s fault. It’s not like she lacks her share of life’s disappointments. (That beehive bouffant, to name just one.)

But she lacks the right kind of disappointment, which is to say that as far as we know, her husband hasn’t cheated on her. That’s not even my misanthropy talking, though that’s certainly in abundance. It would seriously take that kind of marital misstep for women to drop their shields against perfect Palin and raise their swords to two-timing Todd.

Which brings me to the second part of this revelation. Bill’s philandering not only humanized Hillary through humility, it just as significantly armed women with that most potent of artillery: A common enemy. It just so happens that for women, gladiators as they are at the game of the sexes, men are the perfect storm of enemies.

So, a complimentary recap: Todd sows his wild oats, Sarah reaps the benefits of what’s sown, John McCain reaps those benefits.

Where’s Miss Lewinsky when you need her? And, since she’s a Democrat, there’s a brownie point bonus for bipartisanship.

Comments